skip to main content
research-article

Adapting Knowledge Inference Algorithms to Measure Geometry Competencies through a Puzzle Game

Published:06 September 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The rapid technological evolution of the last years has motivated students to develop capabilities that will prepare them for an unknown future in the 21st century. In this context, many teachers intend to optimise the learning process, making it more dynamic and exciting through the introduction of gamification. Thus, this article focuses on a data-driven assessment of geometry competencies, which are essential for developing problem-solving and higher-order thinking skills. Our main goal is to adapt, evaluate and compare Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT), Performance Factor Analysis (PFA), Elo, and Deep Knowledge Tracing (DKT) algorithms applied to the data of a geometry game named Shadowspect, in order to predict students’ performance by means of several classifier metrics. We analysed two algorithmic configurations, with and without prioritisation of Knowledge Components (KCs) – the skills needed to complete a puzzle successfully, and we found Elo to be the algorithm with the best prediction power with the ability to model the real knowledge of students. However, the best results are achieved without KCs because it is a challenging task to differentiate between KCs effectively in game environments. Our results prove that the above-mentioned algorithms can be applied in formal education to improve teaching, learning, and organisational efficiency.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] 2022. Common Core State Standards of Geometry. Retrieved 1 August 2022 from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/G/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Alkhatlan Ali and Kalita Jugal. 2018. Intelligent tutoring systems: A comprehensive historical survey with recent developments. arXiv:1812.09628. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.09628Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Asrifan Andi, Ghofur Abd, and Azizah Nur. 2020. Cheating behaviour in EFL classroom (a case study at elementary school in Sidenreng Rappang Regency). OKARA: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra 14, 2 (2020), 279297. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Baker Ryan, Walonoski Jason, Heffernan Neil, Roll Ido, Corbett Albert, and Koedinger Kenneth. 2008. Why students engage in “gaming the system” behaviour in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 19, 2 (2008), 185224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Baker Ryan S. J. D., Gowda Sujith M., Corbett Albert T., and Ocumpaugh Jaclyn. 2012. Towards automatically detecting whether student learning is shallow. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, Springer, Berlin, 444453. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Brull Stacey and Finlayson Susan. 2016. Importance of gamification in increasing learning. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 47, 8 (2016), 372375. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Buckley Jeffrey, Seery Niall, and Canty Donal. 2018. Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 29, 2(2018), 341362. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Chen Fu, Cui Ying, and Chu Man-Wai. 2020. Utilizing game analytics to inform and validate digital game-based assessment with evidence-centered game design: A case study. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 30, 3 (2020), 481503. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Corbett Albert T. and Anderson John R.. 1994. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and user-adapted Interaction 4, 4 (1994), 253278. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Corbett Albert T. and Bhatnagar Akshat. 1997. Student modeling in the ACT programming tutor: Adjusting a procedural learning model with declarative knowledge. In Proceedings of the User Modeling. Springer, Springer Vienna, 243254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Cui Yang, Chu Man-Wai, and Chen Fu. 2019. Analyzing student process data in game-based assessments with bayesian knowledge tracing and dynamic bayesian networks. Journal of Educational Data Mining 11, 1 (2019), 80100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Baker Ryan S. J. d., Corbett Albert T., and Aleven Vincent. 2008. More accurate student modeling through contextual estimation of slip and guess probabilities in bayesian knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, Berlin, 406415. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Dahl Ole Halvor and Fykse Olav. 2018. Combining Elo Rating and Collaborative Filtering to improve Learner Ability Estimation in an e-learning Context. Master’s thesis. NTNU.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Durães Dalila, Toala Rámon, Gonçalves Filipe, and Novais Paulo. 2019. Intelligent tutoring system to improve learning outcomes. AI Communications 32, 3 (2019), 161174. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Dutta Sandeep and Gros Eric. 2018. Evaluation of the impact of deep learning architectural components selection and dataset size on a medical imaging task. In Proceedings of the Medical Imaging 2018: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and Applications. Zhang Jianguo and Chen Po-Hao (Eds.), Vol. 10579, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 240253. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Elo Arpad E.. 1978. The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present. Arco Pub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Gervet Theophile, Koedinger Ken, Schneider Jeff, Mitchell Tom. 2020. When is deep learning the best approach to knowledge tracing? JEDM| Journal of Educational Data Mining 12, 3 (2020), 3154. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Giofrè David, Mammarella Irene Cristina, and Cornoldi Cesare. 2014. The relationship among geometry, working memory, and intelligence in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 123 (2014), 112128. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Gomez Manuel J., Ruipérez-Valiente José A., and Clemente Félix J. García. 2022. A systematic literature review of game-based assessment studies: Trends and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (2022), 116. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Gonzalez-Brenes Jose, Huang Yun, and Brusilovsky Peter. 2013. Fast: Feature-aware student knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the NIPS 2013 Workshop on Data Driven Education. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/20353/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Hawes Zachary and Ansari Daniel. 2020. What explains the relationship between spatial and mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behaviour. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 27, 3(2020), 465482. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Kim Yoon Jeon and Ifenthaler Dirk. 2019. Game-based assessment: The past ten years and moving forward. In Game-Based Assessment Revisited. (2019), 311. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Koedinger Kenneth R., Corbett Albert T., and Perfetti Charles. 2012. The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science 36, 5 (2012), 757798. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Kolda Tamara G. and Bader Brett W.. 2009. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM Review 51, 3 (2009), 455500. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Krath Jeanine, Schürmann Linda, and Korflesch Harald F. O. von. 2021. Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behaviour 125 (2021), 1–33. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Krishnamurthy Kandamaran, Selvaraj Nikil, Gupta Palak, Cyriac Benitta, Dhurairaj Puvin, Abdullah Adnan, Krishnapillai Ambigga, Lugova Halyna, Haque Mainul, Xie Sophie, Ang Eng-Tat. 2022. Benefits of gamification in medical education. Clinical Anatomy 35, 6 (2022), 795807. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Liu Min, McKelroy Emily, Corliss Stephanie B., and Carrigan Jamison. 2017. Investigating the effect of an adaptive learning intervention on students’ learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 65, 6 (2017), 16051625. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Liu Qi, Shen Shuanghong, Huang Zhenya, Chen Enhong, and Zheng Yonghe. 2021. A Survey of Knowledge Tracing. arXiv:2105.15106. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.15106Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Long Ting, Liu Yunfei, Shen Jian, Zhang Weinan, and Yu Yong. 2021. Tracing knowledge state with individual cognition and acquisition estimation. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 173182. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Martınez Pedro A., Gómez Manuel J., Ruipérez-Valiente Jose A., Pérez Gregorio Martınez, and Kim Yoon Jeon. 2020. Visualizing educational game data: A case study of visualizations to support teachers. (June, 2020). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Minn Sein, Vie Jill-Jênn, Takeuchi Koh, Kashima Hisashi, and Zhu Feida. 2022. Interpretable knowledge tracing: Simple and efficient student modeling with causal relations. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 36, 11(2022), 1281012818. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Mohamed Hafidi and Lamia Mahnane. 2018. Implementing flipped classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system into learning process. Computers and Education 124 (2018), 6276. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Nagatani Koki, Zhang Qian, Sato Masahiro, Chen Yan-Ying, Chen Francine, and Ohkuma Tomoko. 2019. Augmenting knowledge tracing by considering forgetting behaviour. In Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference.Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 31013107. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Pankiewicz Maciej and Bator Maricn. 2019. Elo rating algorithm for the purpose of measuring task difficulty in online learning environments. e-mentor5, 82 (2019), 4351. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Pardos Zachary A., Gowda Sujith M., Baker Ryan S. J. d., and Heffernan Neil T.. 2012. The sum is greater than the parts: Ensembling models of student knowledge in educational software. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 13, 2 (2012), 3744. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Jr Phil Pavlik, Cen Hao, and Koedinger Kenneth. 2009. Performance factors analysis - A new alternative to knowledge tracing. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (2009), 531538. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Pelánek Radek. 2015. Metrics for evaluation of student models. Journal of Educational Data Mining 7, 2 (2015), 119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Pelánek Radek. 2016. Applications of the Elo rating system in adaptive educational systems. Computers and Education 98 (2016), 169179. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Pelánek Radek. 2017. Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: An overview of learner modeling techniques. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 27, 3 (2017), 313350. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Piech Chris, Bassen Jonathan, Huang Jonathan, Ganguli Surya, Sahami Mehran, Guibas Leonidas J., and Sohl-Dickstein Jascha. 2015. Deep knowledge tracing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 (2015), 1–9. Retrieved from https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2015/file/bac9162b47c56fc8a4d2a519803d51b3-Paper.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Ruipérez-Valiente José A., Gomez Manuel J., Martínez Pedro A., and Kim Yoon Jeon. 2021. Ideating and developing a visualization dashboard to support teachers using educational games in the classroom. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 8346783481. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Ruipérez-Valiente José A. and Kim Yoon Jeon. 2020. Effects of solo vs. collaborative play in a digital learning game on geometry: Results from a K12 experiment. Computers and Education 159 (2020), 104008. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. [43] Ruipérez-Valiente José A., Muñoz-Merino Pedro J., and Kloos Carlos Delgado. 2017. Detecting and clustering students by their gamification behaviour with badges: A case study in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education 33, 2-B (2017), 816830.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] Sahebi Shaghayegh, Huang Yun, and Brusilovsky Peter. 2014. Parameterized exercises in java programming: Using knowledge structure for performance prediction. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on AI-supported Education for Computer Science. University of Pittsburgh, 6170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [45] Sarsa Sami, Leinonen Juho, and Arto Hellas.. 2022. Empirical evaluation of deep learning models for knowledge tracing: Of hyperparameters and metrics on performance and replicability. Journal of Educational Data Mining 14, 2(2022), 32–102. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Scruggs Richard, Baker Ryan S., and McLaren Bruce M.. 2019. Extending Deep Knowledge Tracing: Inferring Interpretable Knowledge and Predicting Post-System Performance. arXiv:1910.12597. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.12597Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [47] Strukova Sofia, Ruipérez-Valiente José A., and Mármol Félix Gómez. 2021. Data-driven performance prediction in a geometry game environment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Technology for Social Good.Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 283288. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. [48] Strukova Sofia, Ruipérez-Valiente José A., and Mármol Félix Gómez. 2022. A survey on data-driven evaluation of competencies and capabilities across multimedia environments. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence (2022). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Verschoor Angela, Berger Stéphanie, Moser Urs, and Kleintjes Frans. 2019. On-the-fly calibration in computerized adaptive testing. In Proceedings of the Theoretical and Practical Advances in Computer-based Educational Measurement. Springer International Publishing, 307323. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Vojinovic Zoran and Abbott Michael B.. 2012. Flood risk and social justice. IWA Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] Wang Zhiwei, Feng Xiaoqin, Tang Jiliang, Huang Gale Yan, and Liu Zitao. 2019. Deep knowledge tracing with side information. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, Springer International Publishing, 303308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Wauters Kelly, Desmet Piet, and Noortgate Wim Van. 2010. Monitoring learners’ proficiency: Weight adaptation in the Elo rating system. In Proceedings of the Educational Data Mining 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. [53] Wong Maria Meiha and Csikszentmihalyi Mihaly. 1991. Motivation and academic achievement: The effects of personality traits and the duality of experience. Journal of Personality 59, 3 (1991), 539574. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Xu Sheng, Sun Manfang, Fang Weili, Chen Ke, Luo Hanbin, and Zou Patrick X. W.. 2023. A bayesian-based knowledge tracing model for improving safety training outcomes in construction: An adaptive learning framework. Developments in the Built Environment 13 (2023), 100111. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. [55] Yeung Chun-Kit and Yeung Dit-Yan. 2018. Addressing two problems in deep knowledge tracing via prediction-consistent regularization. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale.Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 10 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. [56] Zhang Liang, Xiong Xiaolu, Zhao Siyuan, Botelho Anthony, and Heffernan Neil T.. 2017. Incorporating rich features into deep knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 4th (2017) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale.Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 169172. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Adapting Knowledge Inference Algorithms to Measure Geometry Competencies through a Puzzle Game

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data
      ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data  Volume 18, Issue 1
      January 2024
      854 pages
      ISSN:1556-4681
      EISSN:1556-472X
      DOI:10.1145/3613504
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 September 2023
      • Online AM: 11 August 2023
      • Accepted: 28 July 2023
      • Revised: 27 June 2023
      • Received: 3 August 2022
      Published in tkdd Volume 18, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)176
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text